And of course, http://cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/67/67468.jpg

Im not too sure about Anumidium looking like Lorkhan.
To me, it seems like an un-Dwemer thing to do.

The Dwemer had no real interest in worshiping any god as far as Im aware, though they did acknowledge their existence.
Their entire endeavor was to escape the Mundus, to use the robot as a means to return to 'the first brush-stroke of Anu and Padomay.'
Why would they model their god after their jailor?

To me, it would seem much more fitting if the Anumidium looked like a giant and regal Dwemer.
I think that would fit their mindset better.

Any resemblance to god-persons missing or non-missing is strictly coincidental.

Or is Lorkhan the snake inside the wound?

Odin isn't enough of a warrior to be Shor. If anything Odin is like Vivec, sacrificing himself for knowledge and power, fights with a spear, poetic, devious.

And a giant Dwemer is what the more recent depictions of Numidium looks like (though in Daggerfall, it looked like some weird spikey monster thing.)

However, the Dwemer respected Lorkhan. Scarab symbols are often found in their ruins, and they themselves used his Heart to transcend. I don't think the Dwemer viewed Lorkhan as a jailor. They saw his plan, understood it, and used Numidium to transcend it. It was mutual respect.

By making Numidium a giant Dwemer, were they not making Numidium look like Lorkhan in their own way?

Fascinating
Great ideas, yes I agree with that.

Which Odin are we talking about here? They don't get any more warlike than old Wodan. Specifically, he is the intelligent, almost tricksterish leader who wins through intellect. Doesn't Shor son of Shor even have him going to the underworld to find out more about himself? I'm struggling to see a single Shor/Thor anologue other than the hammer (and the name..). That mournful, poetic element that Shor and Odin share is too much to ignore. IMO, Odin might be the most interesting character in all religion, and is the clear inspiration for Lorkhan/Shezarr/Shor.

Thor is the one with the hammer. Odin has a spear.
[/nitpick]

Should've made that clearer, sorry. The first sentence is all the things that Shor has in common with Wodan, the second sentence, with his son.

I think trying to link Shor too closely with individual Norse gods is getting us nowhere. He shares aspects with several, and then shares more with others if you look at him from non-Nord perspectives. I mean, the Trip to the Underworld is in most mythologies, so it not only works for Odin and the Well but also Orpheus/Herakles/Odysseus in Grecko-Roman works, the Harrowing of Hell in Christian tradition, lives spent as demons in Hinduism, etc., but he also has a soft spot for humanity, which could link him to Thor, sure, or maybe Balder, since he dies. Oh, wait, I know, Hephaestus, since he is not "whole." No wait, Brave-Swift-Impetuous-Male because he is warlike. Or is that Ares?

See, it's really only fruitful to use real-world belief systems as references because otherwise you just start arguing points that are peripheral.

You are right, of course. He isn't an exact anologue, but shares a lot in common with Odin. Its the ways this is expanded upon that make Shor/Shezzar/Lorkhan special. I like Balder more than Thor actually, think that is closer. My point was merely that the Thor/Hammer thing is weak.

Are there any other religions that have the head of their pantheon as a trickster-king? It is such an interesting archetype.

I'm not sure, but I'm seeing a few parallels between Shor and the Egyptian god Osiris. Both were betrayed, killed, and now rule the realm of the dead.

Lorkhan is also known as the Trickster. Loki. They took a little bit from all the Norse gods and jammed it together.

As well as some Greek and Egyptian mythology, such as the aforementioned Osiris, as well as Prometheus.

It always make me sad to see such tedious deconstruction of any character or story in such a way that implies there are no original ideas anymore.

Lorkhan is Lorkhan. Can't we just leave it at that? What's the benefit of deconstructing him to be some real-world mythological figure? It does not expand our understanding of Lorkhan, it merely points it in the wrong direction.

http://steamcommunity.com/id/Arcturis/screenshot/468608982355881812

I think it does expand our understanding of Lorkhan to realize that he's part of an archetypal tradition. Saying that the archetypal is "not original" is missing the point. If something were truly original in that sense, it would have to be because it did not come out of shared experience. It would have no referent, and therefore could not be understood.

Lorkhan has been so pivotal to the TES cosmos that I cannot fathom why the devs refuse to show him.

Are they lacking ideas? I had hoped for a sighting in Sovengard, but only got the lame excuse about his bright mien


I think the devs do not know themselves

I'm not saying there's nothing that inspires these ideas, but what's the point in searching for any similarity between Lorkhan and...well...anything else? It's not going to get us any closer to the original question of what Lorkhan would look like, and I don't see how it expands our understanding of Lorkhan. He takes from multiple archetypes. You don't need to learn who these other mythological figures are to learn who Lorkhan is, and all it does for me is devalue the sense of fantasy in the series and replace it by picking off pieces of real-world history and shoving it in its place.

It's no different than musing over which real-world race is anologous to which Tamrielic race. It's missing the point.

Your answer?


Right here.

A real image of Lorkhan would be impossible.

Shor on the other hand...

/rifles through some paper.

Merry the eye sore elk? Here?

WE ARE NOT WORTHY! WE ARE NOT WORTHY!

Seconding this. Also, my favourite version so far is also Lady Nerevar's. I know it's Shor and not Lorkhan, but this is always what I imagine.

Also, isn't there a book detailing the war Lorkhan and men had with the elves and Auri-el, in the mortal world? I'm good at remembering bits of stuff from what I've read, bad at finding the source later on. Is that the war where Lorkhan had his heart ripped out and thrown to Morrowind?

So if Lorkhan had a form in the mortal world, would that not be what he looks like? Or does Merry Eyesore the Elk mean that Lorkhan's image is impossible because a true image would not be just his in-the-mortal-world form? That what we have to go on (ie- hole in the chest, etc.) is just his in-the-mortal-world form, but not truly what all that encompasses what the true Lorkhan is?

Sorry if what I just said makes no sense, I haven't slept for almost 48hrs and I'm kind of rambling.

Everyone is comparing Lorkhan/Shor to Norse gods, which is valid; but there is another mythological figure he bears similarities to. Prometheus, of greek mythology. Prometheus went behind the God's back to give fire to man, and sacrificed his freedom for mankind in the process.

Was Lorkhan bound on an island with birds ripping out his body parts and rescued by a demi-god? My point is that one similarity does not mean anything. There are countless similarities between one concept and any others. There is no 1-1 comparison. Now if we were defining how man views Lorkhan in TES then Prometheus may be one of the more apt comparisons with a similar concept in one aspect but for different reasons. They both are viewed as saviors of mankind and had to trick the "higher" beings to do it. After that well...similarities kind of end imo. Prometheus is not really the soul of a soul of one of the original sources of creation.